"inconsistent with title"

Ashashi

Hey guys,

Just studying Property Law and this term is quite frequent in regards to adverse possesion and priorities. Just wondering if someone could just explain it a bit better as it has me a bit confused.

The way I try to understand things is to put them into a real life situation, but just cannot really apply it here. I don't want to just learn it off, I want to actually understand it so for exams I don't get caught out.

So I am of the understanding that a person has a deed to a fee simple, but then someone else has a deed to the same fee simple but they have it down as a leasehold property.

I probably have that wrong, but I am just wondering. Thank you

NoQuarter

I think you have it wrong.

Inconsistent with title in relation to adverse possession means that the "squatter" (who has no deeds, no leasehold or no title or claim to the land) has to do actions that are inconsistent, or go against, the title holders title(fee simple/deeds).

So for example:

You are the title owner of a piece of land. You have it freehold which is to say its fully yours. You have the deeds.

I want to adversely possess your land ie. squat on it. In order to do so, I cant just come and sit on your land for 12 years. I need to act "inconsistent with your title". I need to do something that shouts to the world that I know its your land but Im taking it now and I want to exclude you and everybody else from it and keep it for myself. So to do that I could maybe build a shed or lay down slabs or a number of other things. Each of those things would be inconsistent with your title.

Milk & Honey

NoQuarter wrote: »

I think you have it wrong.

Think!!!!!

NoQuarter

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Think!!!!!

Just trying to be polite

Corruptable

Property Lawlz sucks anyway :P

McCrack

To the OP I think it would be an idea to get first get your head around the various estates in land. This is not a criticism but I suspect from your post that you are not completely to grips with that.

Obviously be aware of the 2009 Act which changed a lot of things and likes of Wylie and Coughlan wont have it mentioned in their texts (unless later editions have been published).

Milk & Honey

McCrack wrote: »

To the OP I think it would be an idea to get first get your head around the various estates in land. This is not a criticism but I suspect from your post that you are not completely to grips with that.

Obviously be aware of the 2009 Act which changed a lot of things and likes of Wylie and Coughlan wont have it mentioned in their texts (unless later editions have been published).

I'd say his problem is coming from reading 2 or 3 pages of a Nutshell or the like.

Ashashi

Firstly thank you for all that replied. And also, I don't use nutshells so please, don't try that with me

I have an understanding of the different estates, I just got a tad confused. A squatter cannot just sit on the land, I am aware, must have an intention to dispossess and exclude all peopel from the land. I was just trying to get my head around it but I asked my lecturer and she explained it anyway.

Also I re-read over that last part and that came out as proper rubbish, so yeah apologies for that confusing mumbo jumbo.

I have my head around it now, and Milk and Honey, I came here looking for some help, there really is no need for your condescending tone. I don't use nutshells, I use Wylie's newest edition but did not have the book available to me at the time so I came here. So please, there was no need for that, you could have provided help instead of just being unhelpful.

To everyone else, many thanks.

234

McCrack wrote: »

To the OP I think it would be an idea to get first get your head around the various estates in land. This is not a criticism but I suspect from your post that you are not completely to grips with that.

Obviously be aware of the 2009 Act which changed a lot of things and likes of Wylie and Coughlan wont have it mentioned in their texts (unless later editions have been published).

Wylie's new edition covers the 2009 Act (he drafted it).

NoQuarter

234 wrote: »

Wylie's new edition covers the 2009 Act (he drafted it).

The 2009 act doesnt cover too many topics on the syllabus anyway so the explanatory memo is more than enough to figure out whats changed if you cant get your hands on Wylie!

234

NoQuarter wrote: »

The 2009 act doesnt cover too many topics on the syllabus anyway so the explanatory memo is more than enough to figure out whats changed if you cant get your hands on Wylie!

And at €200 a lot of people can't.